U.S. LOOKING FORWARD TO APRIL ELECTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Official Sees Hope in U.S. Willingness to Let New Afghan Leader Sign BSA
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

BRUSSELS, Mar. 1, 2014 – President Barack Obama’s recent statement of willingness to let Afghanistan’s next president sign a critical bilateral security agreement may give hope to Afghans who feared NATO-mission troops would withdraw from the nation by Dec. 31, a senior U.S. military official said this week.

On the sidelines of the NATO Defense Ministerial here Feb. 26, the military official spoke on background with several U.S. reporters.

“Yesterday was the first time I’d ever heard our government say there would be a willingness to sign the BSA with another president,” the official said.
Inside Afghanistan there is concern about Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s refusal to sign the BSA and a potential U.S.-ISAF shutdown of the 2015 mission there, and great fear that the United States would not wait to deal with another administration, he observed.

“We’ll have to see what the Afghan people say,” the official said, but added that U.S. willingness to deal with a new administration after Afghanistan’s April 5 presidential elections could help relieve uncertainty among people there.
Karzai won’t be running for re-election as president because of term limits.
The senior military official said he would advertise this willingness among his Afghan counterparts and make sure they know this offers hope “that might not have been there the day before yesterday.”

The official said at the time of the interview he hadn’t seen Obama’s directive but had read news reports about the White House readout of a Feb. 25 telephone call between Obama and Karzai.

The United States requires the Afghan government’s approval of the BSA before committing troops to a post-2014 NATO train-advise-assist mission in Afghanistan called Operation Resolute Support.

The BSA, along with a separate NATO Status of Forces Agreement and agreements with non-NATO nations that contribute troops to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force mission, would give all participating nations a legal justification for the new mission that would begin Jan. 1, 2015.

On the call, Obama told Karzai that because Karzai has refused to sign the BSA, Obama directed Defense Department leaders to make sure plans are in place to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by Dec. 31.

“On the other hand,” Obama said, according to the White House readout, “should we have a BSA and a willing and committed partner in the Afghan government, a limited post-2014 mission focused on training, advising and assisting Afghan forces and going after the remnants of core al-Qaida could be in the interests of the United States and Afghanistan.”

The official said his own concerns about such a delay in plans for 2015 extend first to its impact on Afghan and Afghan security force confidence, then on hedging behavior in the region, coalition cohesion and, only after those considerations, concern about the impact on the physics of the military campaign, which he says military leaders have in control.

“Clearly,” he added, “the political environment as a whole creates concern and uncertainty among the Afghan leadership and the Afghan forces. That’s one of our challenges.”

Whether a BSA agreement is signed or not, the senior U.S. military official said nothing changes for the 2014 NATO ISAF mission until July.
“Regardless of the [decision] for 2015, I would not change the plan that's in place between now and the summer,” the official said.

“In July if we still don’t have a decision … I probably would do some things that would allow us to go either way. Then, as you get to the fall, you start taking a look at whether you're going to empty the theater by the end of December or … set [up] for Resolute Support,” he explained.

The official took a piece of paper and drew a large circle with a smaller circle inside, representing the Resolute Support mission structure.

“In July I will have established the inner circle, [which] is the Resolute Support mission,” he said. “Forces that are deployed this July will [perform] the tasks in the organizational construct of Resolute Support.”

The outside concentric circle represents forces still performing residual ISAF tasks until the end of December, the official said, and gradually over that time will withdraw from the theater.

“The force that's going to deploy in July, even if there's still no [2015] decision, has been trained, organized and equipped to do the Resolute Support task,” he said.

That force, he added, is designed to provide core-level train-advise-assist mission elements.

One of the most important jobs this year for the Afghan national security force is to support the April 5 presidential elections, the senior U.S. military official said.
The Afghans want their election to be inclusive, credible and transparent, he added.

“We largely focus on the inclusivity piece,” the official noted, which includes technical and security elements. That means supporting the Afghans to make sure voters have access to the polls and public information, and providing an environment in which people can believe the vote will make a difference, the official said.

“From a technical and a security perspective I feel pretty good,” he said. “The technical piece [involves] distributing ballot material, building polling sites and assessing security. The security piece is a Ministry of Interior-led effort to ensure security at the polling places.”

The Afghans also want credibility and transparency during the election, and the official thinks these will be the most challenging goals to achieve.

“This is not my specific lane,” he said, “but we’re creating the conditions within which [credibility and transparency] can take place.”

The senior U.S. military official said none of the decisions yet to be made about 2015 affect the last year of the ISAF campaign.

“We have a mandate to do certain things, we have certain authorities, we have certain resources, and I plan on applying those until the very last day of the year,” he said. “No one has suggested that we’re not going to continue to do in 2014 what has been the plan since the [2010] Lisbon Agreement.”

The official said he’s proud of the progress made by the Afghan forces.
“If you ask me today whether the Afghan forces are capable of providing security to the Afghan people, the record speaks for itself,” he said.

But if no BSA is signed and no ISAF troops are on the ground in Afghanistan next year, he added, progress made to date “will not be sustainable.”

Four critical areas still must be addressed, he said. The first involves Afghan security institution capacity -- or MOD (Ministry of Defense) and MOI (Ministry of Interior) capacity building.

In the United States, the Defense Department has people who specialize in acquisition, planning, programming and budgeting, and other people who are experts in managing supplies and identifying requirements.
“There's a big machine in the department that allows forces in the field to be supported,” the military official said.

At the ministerial level in Afghanistan, he said, “we’re only eight or nine months into a concerted effort to develop MOD and MOI capacities. That’s one of the areas of most concern.

“So if you talk about executing a budget,” the military official continued, “the Afghans … aren't capable of executing a complete budget right now, in large part due to a lack of expertise in contracting, acquisition and those kinds of things, and the ability then to project requirements, which is a huge piece of what we do in the Department of Defense.”

In Afghanistan, he said, neither the intelligence nor the aviation enterprises will be mature by the end of 2014. And the special operations capability, he said, inextricably linked with intelligence and aviation, still needs work.
“Those four gaps would be the focus of Resolute Support,” he said.
Without the 2015 mission, he said, “I think we'll see deteriorating security conditions over time as a result of deteriorating Afghan security force capability” caused by simple things like inconsistent distribution of parts, fuel, pay and supplies.

Conditions in the region also affect what ISAF can accomplish in Afghanistan, the official said.

“Uncertainty about 2015 and beyond creates hedging behavior in the region, and all the nations there have to think about how they're going to protect their interests [if] there is no coalition presence at the end of 2014,” he added.

“My sense is that our presence has been and would be a stabilizing presence in the region, allowing some difficult issues to be worked through,” the official said, including complex relationships among Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
Critical work also remains in the region involving the more than 2,000-kilometer-long porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“The enemy has sanctuary in Pakistan,” from which operates “the most virulent strain of the insurgency,” the official said.

“To achieve our end-state in the region, we need a comprehensive approach to address extremism that knows no boundaries. My recommendation is for [the United States to take] a broader regional approach,” he added.

The U.S. military recommendation for the region is in the context of a broader whole-of-government approach, the official said, to achieve the end-state the president has identified.

To be successful in Afghanistan, he added, “you have to address the challenges that are in Pakistan.”

BIG MEETING OF DEFENSE LEADERSHIP WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA ON AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Defense Leaders Meet With President on Afghanistan
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4, 2014 – President Barack Obama is meeting with defense leaders today on the way forward in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman; Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the commander of U.S. Central Command; Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan; and Navy Adm. William H. McRaven, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, will meet with the president in the Oval Office.

"This is the president's opportunity to hear directly from his commanders," Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren told reporters ahead of the meeting.. "This is an opportunity for the president to weigh inputs from the military, as well as other sources, for the president to make decisions as we move forward."
In a related note, Warren commented on news reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been meeting in secret with Taliban officials. "We've long said the path to peace [in Afghanistan] is political and diplomatic, and not military," he said. "We've long said that Afghans speaking to Afghans are what's going to bring about peace and stability in Afghanistan."

Warren did not confirm whether those meetings had taken place.
Finally, the United States continues to urge the Afghan government not to release dangerous terrorists. The government has said it will release 37 prisoners from an Afghan-run detention facility in Bagram.

In the past, Warren has called these men "bad guys" who have the blood of innocent Afghans on their hands. "We believe they continue to be dangerous and should not be released prior to going through the Afghan judicial process," he said today.

UN SECRETARY GENERAL COMMENTS ON PROGRESS IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Rasmussen: Progress in Afghanistan Remarkable, Undeniable
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2013 - The partial government shutdown has not affected U.S. contributions to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan or other NATO missions, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels today.

"So far we haven't seen any negative impact on U.S. contributions to NATO-led operations," Rasmussen said, noting that U.S. military members have been exempted from the shutdown.

Speaking at his monthly news conference, the secretary general also dismissed reported allegations by Afghan President Hamid Karzai that NATO hasn't done enough in Afghanistan.

"Thanks to the immense efforts and the solemn sacrifices of the troops and civilians from ISAF contributing nations, Afghanistan has come a long way in the past decade," Rasmussen said. "The changes have been remarkable, and our investment in lives and resources has been unprecedented. Nobody can deny that. And this effort should be respected."

Rasmussen said he is struck by the Afghan people's recognition of NATO's contribution.

"We have sacrificed much in blood and treasure to assist the Afghan people, and ... whenever I meet Afghans, they express appreciation for that," he said.

While working to ensure the sovereignty of the Afghan state, NATO and other troop-contributing nations in Afghanistan have helped build a strong Afghan National Security Force that now numbers about 350,000, Rasmussen said.

"We have seen the resilience and the growing professionalism of Afghan forces," he said. "And I am confident that the Afghan security forces will be able to take full responsibility by the end of 2014 as planned."

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is preparing to hold elections next year that will be fully led and managed by the Afghans.

"Six months before the polls, preparations are more advanced than for any other elections in Afghanistan's modern history," Rasmussen said.

The registration of candidates was recently completed, with a multi-ethnic lineup of presidential tickets, he said. In addition, women are actively participating as voters, election workers and candidates -- with at least one woman vying for office in every provincial council.

Rasmussen emphasized the importance of "transparent, inclusive and credible" elections, with the results acceptable to the Afghan people so "the political process provides the certainty and predictability that both Afghans and the international community expect."

He welcomed Great Britain's offer to host the 2014 NATO Summit at a turning point for the alliance as it prepares to complete the longest and largest operation in its history.

"This will be a critical opportunity to take stock of our ongoing work, including in Afghanistan, and to look to the future," he said.

"The summit will also ensure that we continue to build on the lessons that we have learned, to strengthen the alliance and keep it ready to deal with modern security challenges," Rasmussen said.

"It will reaffirm the vital transatlantic bond on which NATO was founded," he added. "And it will further enhance our partnerships, which are key to our future success in a world where risks cross borders and we are all interconnected."

DOD LEADERS SAY U.S. ON TRACK IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
U.S. on Track in Afghanistan, Military Leaders Tell Senate
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 18, 2013 - Despite Taliban resistance, U.S. military objectives in Afghanistan are on track, senior U.S. military leaders told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey and Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr. told the committee during their reconfirmation hearing that the International Security Assistance Force mission is on track to achieve its objectives in Afghanistan and end its mission by 2015.
President Barack Obama nominated Dempsey and Winnefeld for second terms as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Dempsey told the senators that Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the ISAF commander, said he will achieve his campaign objectives in developing the Afghan security forces.

"Now, he does also acknowledge there are some potential gaps that he will have better clarity on after this fighting season," Dempsey said.

The chairman and vice chairman told the senators that they have given their recommendations for the size of a residual force the United States will leave in Afghanistan post-2014.

"We've provided several options," Dempsey said. "As the Joint Chiefs, we have made a recommendation on the size, and we've also expressed our view on when that announcement would best meet the campaign objectives."

The United States and Afghanistan must finalize a bilateral security arrangement -- with legal protections for American service members -- before a decision is made. Dempsey said he would stress this when he meets with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Dempsey told the senators he seeks opinions about Afghanistan.

"Besides speaking with General Dunford on a weekly basis and visiting him about quarterly, I also reach out to as many other people as I can possibly reach out to who can give us other views," he said.

All these reports align, the chairman added.

Having American troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014 is crucial to success in the country, Dempsey said.

"Although I've told you that the progress of the security forces has been significant," he added, "they would not have the level of confidence to sustain themselves over time if it happens that precipitously."

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL SAYS AFGHAN GOVERNMENT IS KEY

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel responds during a question-and-answer session with students from the University of Nebraska-Omaha in Omaha, Neb., June 19, 2013. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo


FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Afghan Government Key to Transition, Hagel Stresses
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 20, 2013 - Milestone 2013, which happened June 18 and marked Afghan forces' assumption of the lead in security responsibility for their country, is an unprecedented achievement for the Afghan people, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said yesterday.

During a speech in Omaha, Neb., at his alma mater, the University of Nebraska-Omaha, Hagel said the milestone
"keeps us on track to responsibly end the war next year in Afghanistan and allows us to transition to a far more limited, noncombat mission to assist the Afghan government as it takes full responsibility for the country's future."

The secretary noted the United States and other nations will continue to engage in Afghanistan and will work with Afghanistan, Pakistan and India "to advance security in that critically important region in the world."

After his speech, Hagel responded to a question about the role of the Taliban in Afghanistan's future. The group has opened an office in Qatar, he noted, and the United States supports that initiative.

"We've always supported a peaceful resolution to the end of the bloodshed in the war in Afghanistan," Hagel said, noting that acceptable conditions are in place for the United States to accept the possibility of a next set of meetings between Taliban and Afghan government representatives.

He cautioned, however, that the Taliban would have to "agree to certain things" before meetings would involve the United States.

"I think it's worth the risk," he added. "But it can't be done without President [Hamid] Karzai, without the government of Afghanistan."

Hagel pointed out that NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen attended the Milestone 2013 ceremony in the Afghan capital of Kabul, representing the 50 member nations of NATO's International Security Assistance Force. Both NATO and U.S. forces have worked to establish stability in Afghanistan for more than a decade, he noted.

"This is really about the people, or it should be -- giving the people of Afghanistan ... rights and freedom to make their own lives," Hagel said.

The secretary noted that as a senator, he was part of the first congressional delegation to travel to Afghanistan after 9/11. "I've dealt with President Karzai right from the beginning," he said. "I've known him since 2001 and have a very good relationship with him. But he represents his government, his people. He needs to do what he thinks is right."

Hagel acknowledged the process is a bit frustrating. "But we have to continue to work at it," he added, and we will continue to work at it."

Afghanistan's future depends largely on a political situation based on peace, Hagel said. If a politically negotiated settlement is possible, he asked, "Isn't it smarter, isn't it worth some risk, if the terms are right, to try to facilitate some agreement here that would ... give the poor people of Afghanistan some opportunity to not to have to live in constant war that they've had to live in for decades?"

U.S. and NATO leaders are cleared-eyed about the possible obstacles to political settlement, the secretary said.

"But I think we have to continue to work it," he added. "And it can't be done without the government of Afghanistan."

SPECIAL BRIEFING: U.S. OFFICIALS EN ROUTE TO KABUL

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing: Senior Adminitration Officials
Special Briefing
Senior Administration Officials
En Route To Kabul
March 25, 2013

MODERATOR: So just a reminder, this is a background briefing embargoed until we land, which is easy to implement, with [Senior Administration Official One] who will have some opening remarks, and [Senior Administration Official Two]. So I’ll turn it over to [Senior Administration Official One]. Just as a reminder, we’ll just go around. Everyone gets a question after [Senior Administration Official One]’s done.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, [Moderator]. Let me just try to, in a few minutes, kind of give a broad overview of the trip, and then we’ll get into more detailed Q&As. But obviously, as you all know, Secretary Kerry came to this position with deep experience on Afghanistan and with very established relationships with many of the key leaders, including President Karzai. He was here five times during the course of the first term of this Administration alone, and obviously has worked very closely with the Afghan people and has deep respect for the hopes and aspirations of the Afghan people and understanding of how these hopes and aspirations are connected to our core goals, which at the end of the day is a strong and stable Afghanistan that’s in the national security interests of both the Afghan and the U.S. people.

So --

QUESTION: If you could (inaudible). (Laughter.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Sorry. I’ll try to – all right.

QUESTION: Did he see Karzai five times?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, I’m sure that he is. We’ll confirm, but I’m almost confident that every time he’s come Karzai has been there. I, in fact – in the first term – I traveled with him in two of those times in my current position, and certainly both those times Karzai was there. I’m almost certain that’s the case.

But this is a trip – this is an opportunity for him to meet in person with President Karzai and other officials now in his new position as Secretary, and really to hear directly from Afghans who, while looking forward to a future of a sovereign Afghanistan, are obviously also very concerned about what the transition at the end of 2014 actually entails and what it means in terms of their – the real world implications in their lives. So he particularly wants to discuss progress both with President Karzai and in his other meetings with the whole range of Afghan stakeholders on the ongoing security, political, and economic transitions, and really with a special emphasis on the elections scheduled for next year.

He will make clear that the U.S. will have an enduring commitment in Afghanistan that will last beyond transition, and that there will always be bumps in the road, that it’s a relationship that can withstand those. Look, I want to be as clear-eyed and pragmatic as possible. The process of winding down our current position and role in Afghanistan and stepping into more of a support role as Afghans increasingly take over their own security and development is not going to be a smooth process at all times. Issues of security and sovereignty are always going to be difficult, but the most important thing is that we are honest with each other when there are differences between us, and you’ve seen some of these differences play out recently. So we’ll see more of these, undoubtedly, as a very kind of necessary but complicated processes continue to unfold.

We want to look at, in the broader picture, the more strategic picture. And we believe that we continue to be committed to the same strategy and the same goals of a fully sovereign Afghanistan without al-Qaida and responsible for its own security. We value our partnership with the Afghan people, per our implementation of the Security Partnership Agreement that we signed last year, our continued discussions on a bilateral security agreement, and working to strengthen governance and increase economic opportunity.

Let me run through just highlights of the kind of the key issues on transition. On security transition, he’s obviously interested in hearing how this final phase is going as Afghans take the lead for security across their entire country. As you know, by the end of next year, the security transition is complete, Afghans take full responsibility, and it’s something that should make Afghans very proud.

On the political transition, Secretary Kerry’s very focused on how the U.S. can best support Afghan elections next year. As many of you know, he was very personally engaged in the elections in 2009, and he wants to ensure that the U.S. can help to support and strengthen Afghanistan, keeping faith with the Afghan people.

And on – also with regard to elections, what was signed last year in Tokyo lays out kind of very specific aspects on how we can we best help ensure the conduct of credible, inclusive, transparent elections, and working with really all Afghan stakeholder – not only the government, but independent Afghan electoral institutions, Afghan political parties, civil society – all stakeholders to do what’s necessary for preparation. He will focus on this quite a bit, but we want to make sure that these preparations are in line with the constitution and ultimately result in a process that’s inclusive and consultative and transparent and secure and ultimately something that is hopefully unifying for the country.

On the economic transition, we recognize that the long-term interests of the country depend on the ability to continue to attract investment and have a more viable economic stability. Also in Tokyo, you saw that the international community pledged $16 billion to fill what the World Bank hole was of about – close to $4 billion a year through 2015. Some countries committed to pledging far more after that. The U.S. committed to seeking assistance, civilian assistance, from Congress for at least a few years after that. But the important thing is that we will have to be on a glide path away from assistance over the longer term.

So while our commitments to continued assistance are real and will extend beyond 2014, what we really have to do is try to find ways to make the economic situation in Afghanistan more sustainable. So we’re looking at ways to address fraud and corruption and for the Afghans to really take on the reform commitments that they themselves laid out in the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework.

Let must just say a quick work on reconciliation. We continue to be committed to a peace process between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, and as our presidents confirmed when President Karzai visited in January, Afghan-led peace and reconciliation is the surest way to end violence and ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan and in the region. So we’re looking for any ways we can to support and accelerate the efforts that lead to a strong and a unified Afghanistan. So as we said in January, we support an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations between the Afghans and the Taliban, and we continue to join with President Karzai in calling on the Taliban to join a political process, including by taking those steps necessary to open that office in Doha.

The very last point I want to make before Q&A is that originally Secretary Kerry was hopeful that he would be able to go to Pakistan on this trip as well, but as the government there really enters a very historic period in this electoral process, we wanted to fully respect those institutions and the ongoing process, and so not travel there this time but go there at an appropriate time in the future.

I think what’s currently occurring in Pakistan is quite remarkable. We welcome the announcement of the caretaker Prime Minister yesterday, and as we will hopefully see with elections scheduled in May, the first-ever civilian-to-civilian government, peaceful transition of power in the country. But during this election period, we also wanted to make sure that we continued our ongoing dialogue with Pakistan on the whole series of shared interests that we have, including combating terrorism and ensuring a peaceful resolution in Afghanistan.

So last night, Secretary Kerry had a unique opportunity to meet General Kayani. They happened to overlap in Amman for an evening. General Kayani was there on an official visit to Jordan to meet with his counterpart today. That was announced by the Pakistanis several days ago. And so given the overlap, they met last night to discuss these range of bilateral security issues, including on counterterrorism, on combating safe havens, and on issues that are important to the future of Afghanistan, to Pakistan, and to us.

This was ahead of, obviously, Secretary Kerry’s meetings with President Karzai today, and so he plans to fully readout his conversation with General Kayani last night, and help to continue to inform the ongoing process of transparency and communication between all three of us. And in that same interest, our acting Special Representative David Pearce is in Kabul, he’ll meet us when we land, and he will go to Pakistan quite soon to continue to engage with the civilian government that’s currently there, at this point the technocratic government, if in fact we don’t yet have caretaker appointments in some of these processes, and continue this process of regional confidence building.

MODERATOR: Great. Why don’t we start here?

Andrea.

QUESTION: How – thank you very much – you think I would know how to use a microphone.

MODERATOR: It’s like a press (inaudible). Go ahead.

QUESTION: How does Secretary Kerry plan to address the most recent comments by President Karzai when Secretary Hagel was there, and in what context can he handle that? Does he have to ignore it, smooth it over, challenge it? I mean, what is the approach to Karzai, given what has happened most recently with the new Secretary of Defense?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Certainly the focus on the bilateral relationship will be one of the critical pieces that they talk about. I think in its – he’s very well served by having the lengthy personal relationship with him. I think that they start from a position of some trust of each other, and at the end of the day, that our interests are still very much aligned and that we are all working towards a sovereign and unified Afghanistan, and that we will continue to work together, which is exactly what I was trying to say kind of at the outset of this. This doesn’t mean that there won’t be problems; there undoubtedly will be. But I think that we will continue to be able to achieve some constructive resolution of them in much the same way that we’ve managed to do just over the course of the last week or two.

I don’t have any final confirmation of it, but I think while we’ve been in the air, hopefully there’s been a transfer ceremony to take care of the detentions issue at Parwan, which was obviously one of the issues that was a sticking point. Our teams continue to meet about it. We hammered out a resolution to everyone’s satisfaction and in everyone’s mutual interest. And it supports the long-term sovereignty of Afghanistan.

So I think going into it with – on the basis of their history, given the joint interests, and seeing what we can achieve constructively in the time ahead will be very much the kind of touchstone of their conversations.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Andrea, the only thing I’d add is that since many of those comments were first made, both Secretary Kerry has spoken to President Karzai, but more recently and more frequently, Secretary Hagel talked to President Karzai twice. And as [Senior Administration Official One] mentioned, I mean, we’ve moved forward and past several of the issues that were part of that conflation of friction points. The most prominent one that antagonized that period, which was – I don’t want to downplay it – it was – I mean, it was, of course, of concern to us – was the detentions issues. And Ambassador Cunningham and General Dunford have been negotiating almost daily with President Karzai and his advisors to bring this to resolution, and we believe we have a favorable resolution now. So I think we can start to look past this, or at least we’re hopeful that we can.

QUESTION: Just following up on Andrea’s question, I understand that there have now been some private conversations between Karzai and Hagel and Kerry. But publicly are you going to ask Karzai to disavow the claim that the U.S. is somehow collaborating with the Taliban, which seems so far out given the U.S. military and economic commitment to Afghanistan? And further – so does he need to state, "No. I didn’t actually mean that"? And secondly, given what he’s recently said about his plans to go to Qatar in the coming days, tell us a little bit more about reconciliation and what you’re going to advocate for, since he was claiming that the U.S. was secretly negotiating with the Taliban behind his back. So what kind of a private and public conversation can you have about that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Look, I think the response of Americans across the board, whether those in our Congress, whether officials, whether our publics, has made very clear what they thought was some of President Karzai’s comments. And we will see what he has to say in his public comments today at his – at the press availability and others. I think that we are beyond this incident, and we need to continue to focus on what – how we can most effectively work together and be constructive in how we resolve these.

We’re not there to lecture him or chide him. We’re partners in this, and we were quite clear in terms of what the U.S. has and has not done, and obviously we deny that there has been any daily contact with Taliban, which there has not been. But we do support an ongoing reconciliation process, and as we agreed in January, we think that the – that an office in Doha is the best and most effective way to get there. And so President Karzai going to Qatar, which is primarily for a – for bilateral purposes between the Afghans and the Qataris, but it helps to promote that working relationship, and given that a Doha office will undoubtedly be part of the conversations when he’s there with the Qataris, it’s very much in keeping with the goals that we all committed to back in January when he was in Washington. So we see that as quite positive.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: There has been no – as we said, the Taliban broke off contact over a year ago. At this point, there has not been any contact.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, we’ve addressed this with President Karzai. I mean, to the comment he made that we were meeting with the Taliban daily, we’ve gone privately to him to clarify that – what we’ve told him previously, we’ve been transparent with him throughout and that we haven’t met with them in over a year. And we’ve, of course, corrected the record on that publicly.

I mean, there’s a separate concern about the claim that there’s collusion aside from meeting daily with the Taliban, and I won’t go into all of the particulars of that. I mean, it’s – it was actually fairly – I mean, one has to get into what he actually said in Pashto, how it was translated in English, how it was reported, and so on. But I mean, we’ve gone through some level of detail in clarifying with him already. And like I said, I hope at this point we can begin to move forward and look past this.

QUESTION: This is a follow-up to Andrea’s question. How would you describe your relationship with President Karzai?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, on a variation of a theme, it’s not always going to be easy. There’s difficult issues at stake here. We’re going to have differences. But we are committed to working through them as partners and ensuring that we resolve these issues constructively, because that’s what’s in the best interests of both the American and the Afghan people, and we’ll continue to do so.

QUESTION: Just going back to President Karzai’s visit to Qatar, you said most of the issues are bilateral, but the question of opening up a Taliban office is sure to come up. Is there anything particularly significant to the fact that he is going there? Does this imply greater progress towards setting up the office or not? Do you think it is completely irrelevant in some ways? I mean, does this show significant movement or not?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I wouldn’t want to overplay it, but I think that it’s a very positive sign. It’s another step on a continued path towards what we think is the most effective and efficient way of getting to some sort of reconciliation process. So to the degree that Doha itself and the Qataris will play a key role in there, the closer the relationship is between the Afghan Government and the Qataris Government the better. And the fact that he’s going there, I think, is quite positive in trying to continue to build some momentum from what we agreed to with – between our presidents in January. But nobody is expecting that he will open an office there in a week. Nobody’s expecting that he will be sitting down with Taliban in week. This is a long process, and this is one more small but positive step in that ongoing process.

QUESTION: What’s the status of the BSA at this point in time? And in what specific ways will Secretary Kerry try to move that process forward on this trip?

MODERATOR: (Inaudible) BSA.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Status of the bilateral security agreement. Negotiations are ongoing at quite intensive pace between our chief negotiators, Ambassador Warlick for us and Ambassador Hakimi. There’s going to be a lot of difficult issues there as well. We gave ourselves a year to try to negotiate it from the time it started, per the Strategic Partnership Agreement, and we will continue our efforts there.

QUESTION: What specifically is Kerry – Secretary Kerry going to do on this trip to (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s – it will just be part of the broader strategic conversations with President Karzai on how we continue to align our interests between the two countries and what we can do to continue to support our processes.

QUESTION: Is there a particular (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see.

QUESTION: What’s going to be the impact of the Wardak withdrawal, of the impact of the withdrawal of forces from Wardak?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I actually think – [Senior Administration Official Two] may have something more on what it may mean militarily. From our vantage point, I think it’s another very positive sign in terms of how we’ve resolved ongoing issues. And so to the degree that this was another sticking concern and a potential thorn that we managed to resolve in the interest, again, of kind of Afghan sovereignty, but in a way that both sides felt very comfortable with the result, as General Dunford announced right afterwards, I think it’s a sign that we can continue to resolve and work through our differences constructively.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think [Senior Administration Official One]’s exactly right, that I think both sides feel like there was a favorable resolution. Unlike the detentions issue, the debate was kept private, the deliberations were kept private. General Dunford and the Afghan Government reached a resolution. I don’t want to speak for ISAF, but I believe that we’re relatively comfortable with it. And I think it’s important to look at it in the context of transition, which is essentially how it was resolved. I mean, it wasn’t a complete departure of U.S. security forces from Wardak province; it was a transition from U.S. security forces to Afghan security forces in a small section of Wardak in the end. And I think in the end, the potential consequences or implications of that were mitigated to a very manageable level.

QUESTION: Thanks. How many troops would Secretary Kerry like to see in Afghanistan post 2014, and will those be a serious part of the negotiations? And do you have assurances from Karzai that he won’t be releasing prisoners, now that he’s got control of Parwan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Obviously, anything on troop numbers we can’t speak to. What’s still – decision making that’s still occurring within the interagency, or I wouldn’t speak for Secretary Kerry on that.

In terms of the detention, we have to ourselves actually get – see what happened in kind of the final resolution. But assuming the MOU was executed this morning between the Afghans and the U.S. and the transfer ceremony took place, we felt quite comfortable that the enduring threat, the kind of the detainees that were of most concern would be held according to Afghan law in a humane manner, respecting Afghan sovereignty but also addressing our national security interests.

QUESTION: Thanks. I feel like a tour guide on this. Can you hear me? Okay. Can you hear me? I’m used to working with mikes. Unfortunately, I can’t use this one.

Going back to the question – [Senior Administration Official One], I think you said with the Taliban there have not been any contact; you said there not had been direct contact. Can you just clarify whether direct contact with the Taliban, U.S. and Taliban, or through a third party, is necessary in this reconciliation process? And can you explain how this Doha center is supposed to work, or how it’s envisioned in terms of reconciliation? What is the process?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’ll defer on some of this to [Senior Administration Official Two], who follows this more closely than I do. But the idea of a Doha office is that there will be a specific place for Afghans to speak with other Afghans, Afghan Taliban, about the future of Afghanistan, ideally through President Karzai’s vision, with the High Peace Council sitting down to meet with the Afghan Taliban. And so the more that we can do to facilitate this forum and venue, the sooner that those key stakeholders can start conversations amongst themselves about what the future may look like and how they can get there.

In terms of contacts, I don’t know how else you want to –

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, no, just that – I mean, we – we’re pretty clear about the direct contacts, obviously, and we can be. The Taliban have continued, since direct talks stopped, continued to talk to other governments. They talk to multilateral kind of NGO fora. Some of that has been covered in the media pretty widely. To say we have indirect access via people they have spoken to more or less goes without saying. But it’s not of interest or deliberate to avoid a direct contact. I mean, it’s just – I mean, indirect – we get indirect readouts of what they tell other people through all manner of sources, so – but the channel of significance, where there was direct, deliberate talks, we’ve been clear, and that has not continued at all.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFFICIAL TWO: I mean, it’s hard to say what’s going to be necessary. And that’s – goes to your second question. I mean, that’s really what about – the Doha office is about. I think at some point effective talks, even though it’s going to take time and considerable effort over time, will involve direct talks between the interested parties. And of course, the United States will remain an interested party. But we continue to maintain that the most interested party is the Afghan Government, and they need to be in the lead, and at some point they need to be in direct talks.

QUESTION: Thanks. Sorry, following on from that: Firstly, to what end these talks would you – what are your redlines? Would you accept the Taliban being brought into the government in some kind of broader reconciliation? And secondly, in your negotiations over the BSA, after Panjwai, immunity seems highly unlikely for U.S. troops. Has that been offered as part of these talks?

MODERATOR: Both of you answer it too.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was the first question again?

QUESTION: The first question was: Would you accept Taliban --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Oh, oh, oh. The redlines for the necessary outcomes from a reconciliation process have been consistently the same for many years now, and articulated by Secretary Clinton several years ago and which we maintain, which is that they break from al-Qaida, they lay down arms, and they respect and embrace the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. So those have not changed as necessary outcomes for a process.

QUESTION: And to what extent (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: If there – this is – it’s for Afghans --

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The redlines? Yeah. The redlines have to be said – [Moderator] asked me to repeat our – a break from al-Qaida, laying down arms, and embracing the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. If there are ways for them to be engaged in the political process, which is clearly one area that the Afghans themselves have floated as a potential, that’s for them to sort out once conversations actually start taking place.

In terms of the immunity issue, it’s – whether bilateral security agreements, SOFAs, whatever they are, these are going to be extremely contentious documents to negotiate. Immunity is probably undoubtedly, across the world, going to be one of the hardest ones to negotiate within that, and it’s going to be one of many issues that we deal with. But there’s – but beyond taking a very general approach to that, there’s nothing more specific I have on that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It’s – I honestly couldn’t even tell you what the current state of the negotiations are or what issues they’re focusing on right now. I mean, it’s one of many issues that are on the table.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see. This is still very early days of negotiation.

QUESTION: Can you provide us a bit more detail on how the decision was made for the Secretary not to go to Pakistan on this trip? Did the Pakistani leadership advise that in the current political climate, with attitudes about Americans being what they are, it might make sense for him to stay away? I mean, was there a specific recommendation that he stay in Afghanistan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It was purely our judgment call, in consultation with our experts at the State Department, both in Pakistan and the U.S. and elsewhere. He wanted to go. Obviously, he’s got an equally long relationship with Pakistan that he – as he does with Afghanistan, having visited many times, having been responsible for the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, having ties with – many personal ties with many of the civilian and military leadership.

But given the kind of historic nature of where Pakistan is right now, we wanted to be holier than the Pope on this one on staying away until – while the electoral process unfolded. Given the state of conspiracy theorists, given the state of anything else, we did not want to lead anyone to conclude anything about where our interests may lie. So we’re delighted that this – that the National Assembly served its full five-year term. We’re delighted that the caretaker Prime Minister was appointed per the constitution in a way that is enshrined and that I think strengthens the civilian institutions and the constitutional institutions. We look forward to the elections in May. And as soon as there’s a government in place, I think you can expect to see Secretary Kerry there.

Anne.

QUESTION: I just wanted to go back briefly to reconciliation. The discussion of the Doha office as a future concern sort of seems to skip over the fact that some business being transacted there somehow now – how – do you guys have a view on that? Is what the Taliban is doing in Doha now useful and productive toward opening an office full time? And are you in any way involved in it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was – Anne, what was the last part? I want to --

QUESTION: Is the U.S. – is the United States involved at all in sort of these preliminary set-up negotiations?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, on the last part, I mean, of course we’ve been in normal bilateral discussions with a close ally, and it, of course, includes their readiness to host what could be this office and what we’re hopeful will be the office. I mean, we couldn’t have gotten to the point where we’re publicly – the President’s publicly expressing his support for a Taliban office in Doha without having worked with them on a bilateral basis.

As far as what’s going on with the Taliban in Doha before the opening of an office, to be frank, I think that there’s probably a mixture there in – to the extent it’s toward a political process. As long as it’s leading toward a political process, contributing toward an eventual political process, we’re supportive. Otherwise, we’re not, and we take the steps that we would take anywhere, diplomatically and otherwise, to address it depending on how much concern there is.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: But the – so fundraising would be an example. I mean, anything that the Taliban’s doing in furtherance of their cause, outside of steps towards a political process, in our view, is – remains off-limits. And that’s not a change. That’s not isolated to Doha. That would be the case anywhere. The only peculiar status that Doha enjoys is that I think there’s an expectation that some of that presence could contribute eventually to this political process. And as long as that’s the case, there will be continued support. If that’s not the case, then I think it’s pretty clear that we wouldn’t support it.

QUESTION: Just – I wasn’t clear exactly how the issue of the detainees was resolved, and if you could explain that again, and whether they did give you – I know you were asked, but I didn’t hear the answer, whether you were given commitments that these guys would not be released again.

And then given that they – that you’ve resolved this, what do you want to hear from Karzai on this trip? I mean, are you asking for anything specific? What makes this – what would make this a successful trip?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the detentions issue, I would point you back to the readout of Secretary Hagel’s call with President Karzai on Saturday, which referenced that they had reached an agreement to transfer, that there will be this transfer ceremony scheduled for this morning, following an intensified round of discussions. And the Secretary welcomed President Karzai’s commitment that the transfer will be carried out in a way that ensures the safety of the Afghan people and coalition forces by keeping dangerous individuals detained in a secure and humane manner in accordance with Afghan law.

QUESTION: So now that you – now that this has been resolved (inaudible) Karzai (inaudible), are you expecting anything different from them (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, I don’t want to set the bar too high or too low here. I mean, we – there are some key issues of – that prove to be thorns in the relationship over the course of the last few weeks. Some of them have obviously gone on, like the detainee issue, far longer than that. The fact that we resolved those, I think, is significant.

Does that completely change the calculus? No, not at all, but I think we’re both committed to elevating our conversation at this point, being more strategic about it, and really focusing on what we have to do together in terms of our joint partnership and really trying to ensure that that partnership is enduring.

I mean, I think the thing about transition – I sketched out the three different transitions, but it’s also really an opportunity for all of us, after the SPA, beyond 2014, to enter a new phase in our relationship and one between sovereign nations. And we will continue to focus on responsibility and accountability, and there’s a range of things that we have to continue to talk about as we flesh out the terms of what that partnership will look like. And this is an opportunity to do that.

So if we’re able to do that and continue to be constructive, then I think it would be a success.

MODERATOR: Thank you, everyone.

U.S. SEC. OF STATE CLINTON AND NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER MEET

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Remarks With New Zealand Prime Minister KeyRemarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

New Zealand High Commissioner's Residence, Cook Islands

August 31, 2012

PRIME MINISTER KEY: Okay, so good afternoon. Welcome to Ngatipa, the New Zealand residence here in the Cook Islands. It’s been a pleasure for me to host Secretary Clinton and her team for lunch today. It’s always wonderful to have Secretary Clinton in this part of the world. New Zealand very warmly remembers your visit to our country back in 2010 when you signed the Wellington Declaration, which describes in celebrating the strategic partnership of our two countries here. In the almost two years since Secretary Clinton’s visit to New Zealand, the bilateral relationship has gone from strength to strength. Earlier this year, the Wellington Declaration was complemented by the Washington Declaration (inaudible) relationship.

Secretary Clinton and I discussed a number of areas of cooperation, and I’ll mention just a few. The (inaudible) and the Cook Islands are the forums and executive office is fully committed to supporting inspirations and initiatives of Pacific Island countries. As the outgoing chair of Cook Islands Forum, New Zealand welcomes the full (inaudible) historically strong engagement with the island nations of the Pacific.

We’ve been pleased to announce this week a number of joint initiatives, including the areas of (inaudible) economic development, clean energy, and maritime surveillance. We discussed Afghanistan. New Zealand has stood alongside the United States as part of an international coalition there since 9/11 joined by other countries to tackle the threats posed by al-Qaida and its allies. We’ve endured the terrible loss of life suffered by our coalition partners in Afghanistan, particularly the recent New Zealand and Australian losses and those of the United States.

Secretary Clinton and I discussed the broad range of issues in the Asia Pacific region as we look towards the APEC summit in Russia in around 10 days time. New Zealand warmly supports the United States rebalancing towards the Asia Pacific, and we welcome the opportunity to cooperate with the U.S. in the next conflicts. We discussed our ongoing (inaudible) along side a number of other countries (inaudible) partnership agreement. Secretary Clinton and I share the goal of securing a high quality, (inaudible) free trade agreement, would be a significant (inaudible) countries involved, indeed to the region as a whole.

Before passing over to Secretary Clinton, I’d like to convey publicly my personal gratitude for all that she’s done for the past relations between our two countries and our two peoples over the past four years. Secretary Clinton’s personal interest and involvement in our country is greatly appreciated by the New Zealand people. You’ve been great friends to New Zealand and you’re always welcome (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Prime Minister, thank you very much for the warm welcome that you have provided. As the first Secretary of State to make this journey, I am especially delighted and honored. I was pleased to meet with leaders of the Pacific Island Forum, member states, to attend the Pacific Island Forum, post-forum dialogue where I had a chance to reaffirm the Obama Administration’s commitment to our engagement in the Asia Pacific with an equal emphasis on the Pacific part of that phrase. The United States is very proud to be a Pacific nation, a long history in this region, and we are committed to be here for the long run.

Today, I’m announcing new programs and new funding to support our friends in this region in three key areas: promoting sustainable economic development and protecting biodiversity; advancing regional security; and supporting women of the Pacific as they reach for greater political, economic, and social opportunities.

To give just a few examples, the United States will work with Kiribati to protect its marine ecosystem and help coastal communities throughout the region adapt to the effects of climate change and to develop renewable energy resources.

We will expand our security partnership so U.S. ships can be of even greater help in preventing illegal and unregulated fishing, and we will take additional steps to clean up unexploded ordnance in the region, much of it still there from World War Two. We will support the Rarotonga Partnership for the Advancement of Pacific Island Women, launched just today, and I’ll be looking forward to meeting with women from the region later this afternoon.

I’m also very committed to expanding investment and trade in the region, in pursuit of sustainable economic growth. Later today, I’ll meet with local pearl vendors from here in the Cook Islands who are running their businesses while also protecting marine resources.

Obviously, I could go on because there’s a lot to do in this very important region of the world, and there is no doubt that our relationship with New Zealand provides a strong foundation for our engagement across the Pacific. I especially want to thank Prime Minister Key for his leadership in revitalizing the partnership between New Zealand and the United States. As he said, we signed the Wellington Declaration two years ago, and then in June our countries signed the Washington Declaration, which emphasized our defense cooperation.

We are working together on a number of important issues, from establishing security in Afghanistan where Kiwi soldiers have made extraordinary sacrifices. Just recently, the losses are ones that we are equally grieved by and offer our condolences to the families as well as the people of New Zealand. We also are very appreciative of New Zealand’s leadership in addressing climate change and conserving natural resources and opening the doors of opportunity.

In particular, I want to thank the Prime Minister for his government’s support of women across the region. And we’re going to create an exchange program connecting women in the Pacific with women in the Caribbean who work in agriculture so they can learn from each other and understand better how to improve the incomes and opportunities for themselves and their families.

The United States welcomes the chance to work with a broad array of partners in the region –Japan, the European Union, China – we all have an interest in advancing security, prosperity, and opportunity. And as I said this morning, the Pacific is certainly big enough for all of us. So thank you Prime Minister, the United States values our relationship. We celebrated its 70th anniversary this year. We feel a special kinship and closeness to New Zealand and your people and we continue to look, as you said, for our relationship to go from strength to strength. So thank you again for your leadership and partnership.

MODERATOR: Secretary Clinton and Prime Minister Key have kindly allowed two questions from each side. May I remind you to please (inaudible)? We’re going to start with New Zealand and (inaudible).

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. How concerned is the U.S. that China’s growing influence in the region (inaudible) how it administers aid, and also its growing links with (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: So this is an area that the Prime Minister and I discussed over lunch, and I have to say that we think it is important for the Pacific Island nations to have good relationships with as many partners as possible and that includes China as well as the United States, and we believe there is more that China can do with us, with New Zealand, with Australia, with others, to further sustainable development, improve the health of the people, deal with climate change and the environment, and I look forward to discussing these issues when I am in Beijing next week.

New Zealand sets a good example for the work that we think can be done with China. New Zealand has worked with China on water issues, for example. We want to see more multinational development projects that include the participation of China. And as part of our strategic and economic dialogue with China, we have a section on development. And it’s been my observation over the last four sessions that we have now held that China is becoming more interested in learning from, understanding best practices and cooperating with other countries.

Our policy, as expressed by President Obama and myself many times, is we want a comprehensive, positive, cooperative relationship between the United States and China. We think it is good for our country, it’s good for our people, and in fact, it’s not only good for this region, it’s good for the world. We’ve invested a lot in our strategic and economic dialogue. We speak very frankly about areas where we do not agree. We both raise issues that the other side would prefer perhaps we not, or they not. But I think our dialogue has moved to have a positive arena because we are able to discuss all matters together.

Now here in the Pacific, we want to see China act in a fair and transparent way. We want to see them play a positive role in navigation and maritime security issues. We want to see them contribute to sustainable development for the people of the Pacific; to protect the precious environment, including the ocean; and to pursue economic activity that will benefit the people.

So we think that there’s a great opportunity to work with China, and we’re going to be looking for more ways to do that.

MODERATOR: Next question.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Secretary. If I could follow up first a little bit on the previous question. You mentioned that there was room for cooperation between the United States and China in development (inaudible) one introduced here in climate change. Can you tell the leaders of the Pacific Islands that the United States is doing all that it can?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, after the first question, I know Admiral Locklear is here with us and he’s certainly more than capable of speaking for himself about what PACOM is doing. But several things: We are beginning to discuss cooperation with respect to disaster prevention and response. We would like to see China play a role in that. There are a lot of disasters in this region, from earthquakes, which New Zealand knows so well, to tsunamis and cyclones and terrible flooding as we saw in the Philippines just recently. So we think that that is an area that should be explored in more depth.

We also believe, on the aid front, that there is a lot of opportunity for cooperation between us and China. It is something we are modeling after New Zealand. New Zealand has been working on water issues with China, we want to learn the lessons about what works. PACOM has a great reach in the Pacific and is involved in everything from overseeing our hospital ships to working to train local officials in protecting their environment and protecting their water.

We also know that there’s a real threat from climate change, which gets me to your second question. This is real. I will underscore that. It is one that the leaders of these nations speak about with great passion because they are all very low lying land and are worried that they’re going to be swamped in the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years. So we understand very well the feelings that the Pacific Island nations have about climate change. And we stand behind our pledges in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to prompt substantial action to help vulnerable countries adapt.

Among the programs we discussed today at the new coastal community adaptation project. It’s a five-year, $25 million project to help build the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities of the Pacific to withstand extreme weather, and not only in the short run, but rising sea levels over the longer term. USAID, which as you know we brought back to the Pacific and established a headquarters in Papua New Guinea, is contributing $3 million over three years to Germany, coping with climate change in the Pacific Islands programs. And we’re working continually to develop an international consensus on reducing green house gas emissions, and other short – and on the short list – climate pollutants initiative that I started a year ago. As you know, in part because of the economy, U.S. emissions are the lowest that they’ve been in 20 years.

But look, we know we have more to do, and we have made a commitment, we’re going to stick with our commitment. I hope that we’ll be able to go beyond those commitments in the future.

MODERATOR: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Australia and New Zealand suffered one of the greatest losses of life since the Vietnam War in Afghanistan. Do you think the sacrifice was worth it, and do you (inaudible) stand by the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well first, let me say to both New Zealand and Australia, we are deeply grateful for their participation in this coalition effort under ISAF. And we’re also very sorry about their losses as we are at the loss of any of our coalition partners and ourselves. But I think it’s important to stress that both New Zealand and Australia have played a crucial role in the ISAF mission. Their soldiers and civilians are highly regarded.

New Zealand’s contributions are far beyond what one would ordinarily expect of a country the size of New Zealand. Prime Minister Key and I of course discussed Afghanistan today. I also called Prime Minister Gillard to express condolences and exchange views with her. And I’m gratified that despite the challenges we’ve all had, including the losses that we have suffered at the hands of insurgents and turncoats, we are all resolved to see this mission through as the commitments we’ve made suggest.

I think it’s important to just reflect on the fact that a lot of progress has been made. Any time we lose the lives or see one of our soldiers or civilians – I mean, I lost an aid worker, I have a seriously injured foreign service officer in – at Walter Reed – every time this happens, soldiers and civilians alike. we are reminded of the incredible sacrifice that our nations are making.

But we should also remind ourselves of the progress we have made since we went into this together. Over lunch, the Prime Minister was sharing some statistics from the New Zealand PRT in (inaudible) province that are really impressive in terms of advances in health, education, and infrastructure. So we are committed to seeing this through as we all agreed to at Lisbon, as we reiterated at Chicago, because we cannot afford see Afghanistan turn back into a haven for terrorism that threatens us all. And the work we have done together to prepare the Afghan national security forces to defend themselves and take the security lead is a much greater positive than negative story.

So we offer our condolences, but we also offer our appreciation to the people of New Zealand – soldiers and civilians alike who have been part of this important global effort.

MODERATOR: One last question. Steve Myers from New York Times.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madam Secretary, (inaudible), can you talk a little bit about the (inaudible) this designation of the Haqqani Network as a terrorist organization? What is your thinking on the pros and cons of that before the deadline next week? And Prime Minister, if you would, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on the prospect of a negotiated settlement with groups like the Haqqani Network or the Taliban as part of the effort to drawing down the war there?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Steve, I’m not going to comment on any stories about any internal discussions, of course. But I’m aware that I have an obligation to report to Congress. Of course, we will meet that commitment. And I’d like to underscore that we are putting steady pressure on the Haqqanis. That is part of what our military does every single day along with our ISAF partners. We are drawing up their resources, we are targeting their military and intelligence personnel. We are pressing the Pakistanis to step up their own efforts. So we’re already taking action and we’ll have more to say about the specific request from Congress next week.

PRIME MINISTER KEY: Well, as Secretary Clinton indicated, from New Zealand’s point of view, we think two goals in Afghanistan have been to try and train both Afghanis (inaudible) crisis response units in the Afghan police. And we’ve done that – (inaudible) we will be doing it in (inaudible) but we hope (inaudible) look after its own security.

In terms of any negotiation with the Taliban or with groups in Afghanistan, we fundamentally believe that will ultimately be a matter for the Afghan Government, but they will (inaudible) find a way through a very difficult situation and its coming to the (inaudible) I wouldn’t be surprised if some part of it attempts to deliver greater security in Afghanistan some discussion. But it’s ultimately up to President Karzai.

U.S. DEFENSE AND STATE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIES EXPRESS COMMITMENT TO AFGHAN STABILITY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State NATO Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
April 18, 2012 

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. I’m very pleased to join Secretary Panetta and our defense and foreign minister colleagues here in Brussels for this meeting, the joint ministerial of NATO, to prepare for the upcoming NATO summit in my birthplace, Chicago. The main focus of our conversations today was Afghanistan, which I will focus on tomorrow at the meeting of our ISAF partners. But let me say how grateful the United States is for the solidarity and steadfastness of our NATO allies and ISAF partners.

As difficult a week as this has been in Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan, the big picture is clear. The transition is on track, the Afghans are increasingly standing up for their own security and future, and NATO remains united in our support for the Lisbon timetable, and an enduring commitment to Afghanistan. The attacks in Kabul this week show us that while the threat remains real, the transition can work. The response by the Afghan National Security forces were fast and effective, and the attacks failed. Not long ago, this kind of response by Afghans themselves would not have been possible. So the Afghans are proving themselves increasingly ready to take control of their own future.

Now by their nature, transitions of any kind are challenging. There will be setbacks and hard days. But clear progress is happening, and today, NATO reaffirmed our commitment to stand with the Afghans to defend stability and security, to protect the gains of the last decade, and to prevent there ever being a return of al-Qaida or other extremists operating out of the Afghan territory.

Both Secretary Panetta and I were impressed by how united the NATO allies are in supporting the Lisbon timetable. We are on track to meet the December 2014 deadline for completing the security transition. Already 50 percent of the Afghan people are secured primarily by Afghan forces, and by this spring, it will be 75 percent. Today, we worked on the three initiatives for the Chicago summit next month.

First, we will agree on the next phase of transition to support our 2014 goals. Second, we want to be ready to define NATO’s enduring relationship with Afghanistan after 2014. And third, we are prepared to work with the Afghans to ensure that the Afghan National Security force is fully funded. NATO is united behind all these goals, so we are looking forward to a very productive summit in Chicago.

But let’s keep in mind that the transition and NATO’s mission are part of a larger enterprise, one that also has political and economic dimensions. Afghanistan’s neighbors have a central role to play in that larger enterprise along with the international community. Our common approach was sharpened when the international community met in Istanbul and Bonn last year, and will be carried forward when we meet again in Chicago, Kabul, and Tokyo this year.

So beyond NATO, many nations are invested in Afghanistan’s future and are providing support for the Afghans to attain self reliance, stability, and further their democratic future. They have to protect, however, as they go through this transition, their hard-fought political and economic and human rights progress. Incidents like the one we heard of yesterday when 150 Afghan girls became sick after the water at their school was poisoned, reminds us that there are people who would destroy Afghanistan’s long-term future in order to restrict the rights of women and girls. Human rights protections for religious and ethnic minorities are also still fragile. Universal human rights are critical to Afghanistan’s security and prosperity, and we will continue to make them a priority.

While NATO has worked very hard to assist the people of Afghanistan, NATO has also been changed by this experience. The alliance is now a leading force for security, not just in the Atlantic region, but globally. We are steadily deepening and broadening the partnerships NATO has with dozens of countries around the world, and our partners are adding valuable capability, legitimacy, and political support to NATO’s operations and missions from the Mediterranean and Libya to Kosovo and Afghanistan.

So we believe we are building a stronger, more flexible, more dynamic alliance enriched by partners from every continent and prepared to meet the security challenges of our time. With that, let me turn the floor to Secretary Panetta.

SECRETARY PANETTA: Thank you. Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to join Secretary Clinton here in Brussels. We had a very good series of meetings today with our NATO defense and foreign minister counterparts. Much of our discussion focused on our shared effort in Afghanistan, and what came out of these meetings was a strong commitment to sticking to the plan and the strategy that has been laid out by General Allen, and finishing the job in Afghanistan. Allies and partners have a very clear vision and a very clear message. Our strategy is right, our strategy is working, and if we stick to it, we can achieve the mission of establishing an Afghanistan that can secure and govern itself, and never again become a safe haven for terrorists to plan attacks on our country or any other country.

All of us are committed to the goals that were set out in the Lisbon framework, including continuing the transition to full Afghan security leadership by the end of 2014. We know there will be continuing challenges, and we saw some of those challenges over this last weekend. This is a war. There will be losses, there will be casualties, there will be incidents of the kind that we have seen in the last few days. But we must not allow any of that to undermine our commitment to our strategy.

The fact is, with regards to the events that took place over the weekend, we saw Afghan security forces do what we have trained them to do. They responded quickly, professionally, and with great courage, rendering ineffective those largely symbolic attacks that we saw in and around Kabul.

General Allen said he visited an Afghan special operations commando who had been wounded in the insurgent attacks and asked him if he could do anything for him. The Afghan commando’s response was, and I quote, “I just want to get back out there with my brother soldiers,” unquote. That short phrase speaks volumes. As General Allen has made clear, history proves that insurgencies are best and ultimately defeated not by foreign troops but by indigenous security forces, forces that know the ground, that know the territory, that know the culture, that know the neighborhood. When the Afghans do their job, we are doing our job. When the Afghans win, we win.

And the Afghans are making progress. They are in the lead now in areas that encompass more than 50 percent of the population in Afghanistan. When the third tranche of areas are transferred, we will have 75 percent of the population under Afghan governance and security. They have been in the lead for counterterrorism night operations since December. And now, thanks to a memorandum of understanding that was recently signed, all of these operations will fall under the authority of Afghan law. In less than six months’ time, Afghan security forces will take full leadership of detention operations, thanks again to another agreement that was signed recognizing Afghan sovereignty.

As I’ve said, 2011 was a real turning point. It was the first time in five years that we saw a drop in the number of enemy attacks. Over the past 12 weeks, enemy attacks continue to decrease compared to the same period in 2011. Taliban has been weakened, Afghan army operations are progressing, and the reality is that the transition to Afghan security and governance is continuing and progressing.

We see other signs that we are seriously degrading the insurgency. By January 2011, 600 Taliban had integrated into the society. This month, that number topped 4,000. We intend to build on this success. We’re committed to an enduring presence in Afghanistan post-2014 and a continuing effort to train, advise, and assist the ANSF in protecting the Afghan people and denying terrorists a safe haven. We cannot and we will not abandon Afghanistan. The key to our enduring partnership is continued international support. We cannot shortchange the security that must be provided by the Afghan forces now and in the future.

Today, I will also discuss with my NATO counterparts the steps needed to ensure that the alliance has the right military capabilities for the future. Across the board, allies are making important commitments to smart defense, with opportunities for new capabilities in ISR, missile defense, and air-to-air refueling. While significant progress has been made, important work lies ahead. The NATO we build is not only the force of today; it must be the force of 2020.

I’m pleased to announce that earlier today, along with Czech Defense Minister Vondra, I signed the Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement with the Czech Republic. The agreement reaffirms the importance and vitality of the U.S.-Czech defense relationship and enhances our cooperative security relationship. And as you know, this is the last high-level meeting before the Chicago summit in May. I think Secretary Clinton and I will take back to President Obama the results of these discussions. And I believe we have helped lay the groundwork for a very successful summit, and most importantly, for a strong and enduring NATO alliance.

MS. NULAND: We’ll take three today. Let’s start with Reuters. Arshad Mohammed, please.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, I’m sure that you will have seen that the violence – the government violence continues in Syria. Homs continues to be shelled, I think almost every day since the ceasefire ostensibly took effect. And the Syrian foreign minister has pushed back against the kind of mission that Kofi Annan would like to insert, saying that it should be no more than 250 monitors, they don’t need their own helicopters and mobility, and they should be from friendly countries.

Given this, is it now time for the United States to look harder at whatever kinds of pressure can be brought to bear against the Assad government? And specifically, are you giving any more thought to rethinking your previous opposition to others arming the rebels? And are you giving any more thought to trying to get the Arabs to impose a more forceful sanctions regime on Syria?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Arshad, first of all, Syria was a subject of conversation among many of our allies today. Every country in NATO is watching the situation with concern. I don’t want to prejudge what does or does not happen with the observers. The first tranche of the UN monitors is just beginning to deploy. It is, obviously, quite concerning that while we are deploying these monitors pursuant to a Security Council resolution that confirms our commitment to Kofi Annan’s six-point plan, the guns of the Assad regime are once again firing in Homs, Idlib, and elsewhere, and Syrians continue to die. So we are certainly cognizant of the very challenging road ahead. We are all here, united in favor of Kofi Annan’s plan and his urgent call for a robust monitoring force.

But we are at a crucial turning point. Either we succeed in pushing forward with Kofi Annan’s plan in accordance with the Security Council direction, with the help of monitors steadily broadening and deepening a zone of non-conflict and peace, or we see Assad squandering his last chance before additional measures have to be considered.

Now, we will continue to increase the pressure on Assad. I spoke with several ministers about the need to tighten sanctions, tighten pressure on the regime, on those who support the regime. And we also are going to continue pressing for a political solution, which remains the goal of Kofi Annan’s plan and the understandable goal of anyone who wants to see a peaceful transition occur in Syria.

I also would add that I’ve only spoken for the United States. The United States is not providing lethal arms, but as I’ve said before, the United States is providing communications and logistics and other support for the opposition. And we will continue to do everything we can to assist the opposition to be perceived as – and in reality become – the alternative voice for the Syrian people’s future.

And make no mistake about it; this conflict is taking place right on NATO’s border. We saw, just last week, the shelling across the borders into Turkey and into Lebanon. Our NATO ally, Turkey, has already suffered the effects of not only the influx of refugees that it is very generously housing, but also having two people killed on their side of the border because of Syrian artillery.

So we will remain in very close touch as events unfold. I look forward to continuing our consultations tomorrow at the ad-hoc group meeting that will be hosted by Foreign Minister Juppe in Paris.

But as I have reiterated, we will judge the Assad regime by their actions, not their words. We have been working to try to reach consensus in the Security Council, which we did in support of Kofi Annan’s six-point plan. The burden has shifted, not only to the Assad regime, but to those who support it to be forced to explain why, after time and time again stating that they will end the violence, the violence continues. So obviously, this is going to be a very high priority for all of us going forward.

QUESTION: Is it okay for others to arm any rebels?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not speaking for anyone but the United States of America.

MODERATOR: The next question will be from Anne Gearan of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Yes. To both of you, please, could I ask you to comment on publication today of photos purportedly showing U.S. troops posing with the corpses of Taliban militants? What did you think when you heard about this? What did you think when you saw the photos? And doesn’t this sort of undermine all the progress that you claim and the strategy you laid out just a moment ago?

Secondly, if I could ask each of you to respond to President Karzai’s remark yesterday that he would like a firm written commitment of 2 billion a year from the United States for security forces. Should he be concerned that you’re going to renege on that promise? And why doesn’t he just take your word for it?

SECRETARY PANETTA: With regards to the photos, I strongly condemned what we see in those photos, as has General Allen. That behavior that was depicted in those photos absolutely violates both our regulations, and more importantly, our core values. This is not who we are, and it’s certainly not who we represent when it comes to the great majority of men and women in uniform who are serving there.

I expect that the matter will be fully investigated. That investigation has already begun. This is a matter that goes back, I believe, to 2010, but it needs to be fully investigated, and that investigation, as I understand, is already underway. And wherever those facts lead, we will take the appropriate action. If rules and regulations were found to have been violated, then those individuals will be held accountable.

Let me also say this: This is war. And I know that war is ugly and it’s violent. And I know that young people sometimes caught up in the moment make some very foolish decisions. I am not excusing that. That’s – I’m not excusing that behavior. But neither do I want these images to bring further injury to our people or to our relationship with the Afghan people. We had urged the L.A. Times not to run those photos, and the reason for that is those kinds of photos are used by the enemy to incite violence, and lives have been lost as a result of the publication of similar photos in the past, so we regret that they were published. But having said that, again, that behavior is unacceptable, and it will be fully investigated.

With regards to President Karzai’s comment, we – as both the Secretary of State and I know from our own experience, you have to deal with Congress when it comes to what funds are going to be provided. And we don’t, nor do – we do not have the power to lock in money for the Afghans or anybody else.

QUESTION: Did you apologize on behalf of the United States for those photos or the actions depicted in them in your meetings today?

SECRETARY PANETTA: I was not asked about it, but obviously, my apology is on behalf of the Department of Defense and the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: And the final question will come from Petro Dekurning of NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch newspaper.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, the secretary general told us that some allies already came up with contributions for the Afghan army after 2014. Are you satisfied with this? And while this was not a pledging conference, what do you expect? What amounts do you expect from the allies to come up with? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we were very encouraged by the commitment from the NATO allies to the funding of the Afghan National Security Forces. We believe that we are on the path to ensuring that these security forces, which, as Leon has just said, made such progress because of our training and mentoring over the last few years, will have the resources necessary to protect the Afghan state and the Afghan people. So I’m going to let individual countries make their own announcements.

But as we move forward toward the NATO summit, one of the goals is to ensure that NATO has an enduring relationship with Afghanistan, and in many ways, not just in terms of financial commitments, but in other ways as well. A lot of the member countries are stepping up and talking about what they intend to do. And similarly, tomorrow, we expect to hear from a number of our ISAF partners about their continuing commitment as well. So I think both Leon and I were encouraged and believe we’re making progress.

MS. NULAND: Thank you very much.